Helper for Adam?

[Johann]

Technically speaking not all who have ordained women have moved on to HO. But there are other factors that are unanimous. For instance, every denomination that has gone WO is still either in membership decline or is irrelevent to the evangelistic picture.Including the UM. And several of the major denominations have gone from WO to HO in less than 50 years.

Somehow this argument seems irrelevant to me when it comes to the Seventh-day Adventist church. It downgrades our calling and makes us just on par with all of the other churches.

What has happened to the Advent message? Are we no longer a special people called by God to proclaim the threefold angelic message of salvation, judgment, and the second coming of Jesus?

From the beginning of our history our pastors have been primarily evangelists whose main purpose in life is not hovering over established churches but to proclaim and increase. Some have failed, but why not renew the primary emphasis?

Our Spirit of Prophecy makes it clear that in certain places and circumstances a woman can do much better work than male evangelists. Why should they not be given the same support and guidance as our male evangelists have had?

[joeb]

If adam sinned first and not eve, i still think the fall of the human race would not have been complete.

It took both of them to complete the fall of mankind.

lucifer planned to creat eternal sinners. If they would just get to the tree of life he would have it. God intervened. don't you think cain would have loved to get a hold of that fruit and live forever without having to kill a lamb?

If both had not fallen, there would be no little baby sinners populating the earth. Satan had to settle for sin being perpetuated through progeny. He has made the most of it, but alas it is a temporary rule.

Adam needed Eve to have the love of an equal, and to have offspring. This is what all the other creatures had. Ultimately Adam needed Eve to fully comprehend God. It took both genders to for them to experience a love that would closely represent the love of God. let us make man in our image, male and female. Ideally through family love we express and experience God's love for us.

The love of mother to child most closely represents God's love. sorry guys.

This is not an excuse to sexualize God's love, or to genderize spiritual leadership. Men and women lead each other all the time, and have many non sexual relationships.

Ummm, and just why would Eve not have fallen if Adam had sinned first? She, in fact, set the whole shebang of sin in motion, so how do you get to the idea she was morally superior to Adam? At least that's what I'm taking away from your idea that if Adam had sinned first Eve wouldn't have.

Did she not have the same needs/excuses Adam gave for his fall? You know, companionship, love of her mate, to be a "whole" human being through having a mate, to really comprehend God through the love in marriage, etc...?

I can also point you to a lot of mothers who have a lot less love for their children than those children's fathers do, so I think your "love of a mother" point is moot. Just being female does not even come close to being a guarantee of that person being a loving parent.

[debbym]

Quote:

Ummm, and just why would Eve not have fallen if Adam had sinned first? She, in fact, set the whole shebang of sin in motion, so how do you get to the idea she was morally superior to Adam? At least that's what I'm taking away from your idea that if Adam had sinned first Eve wouldn't have.

i needed to write that first sentence better, i wrote if adam had sinned first and not eve. i meant to say, if adam sinned first, and then eve did not sin. I am still on with the idea that it took both of them to complete the fall of mankind.

there was no implication that she was in any way superior. they both sinned, and they were reached in different ways.

Quote:

Did she not have the same needs/excuses Adam gave for his fall? You know, companionship, love of her mate, to be a "whole" human being through having a mate, to really comprehend God through the love in marriage, etc...?

i just was not there, and have a dim idea of how amazing adam and eve were.

Quote:

I can also point you to a lot of mothers who have a lot less love for their children than those children's fathers do, so I think your "love of a mother" point is moot. Just being female does not even come close to being a guarantee of that person being a loving parent.

just as men are not any guarantee of responsibility, or effective leadership, so women are not any guarantee of responsibility, faithfulness and tenderness.

never the less it is true, the oneness between a child's utter helplessness, expressing it's need, and the mothers response and how this works together for life to grow and have what it needs, is the closest human relationship to reflect our relationship to God.

we are all utterly dependent on God for every step we take in the christian walk.

[joeb]

i needed to write that first sentence better, i wrote if adam had sinned first and not eve. i meant to say, if adam sinned first, and then eve did not sin. I am still on with the idea that it took both of them to complete the fall of mankind.

there was no implication that she was in any way superior. they both sinned, and they were reached in different ways.

Ahhh.... I understand now. I resemble that remark.

It's so difficult to really get an idea across in this form of communication as about 90% of communication is non-verbal to begin with, and with this form we even eliminate tone of voice, so what's left of our communication abilities? Seven or eight percent at best?

I agree that it took both of our parents to fall to complete the fall of mankind. As to your thoughts on the mother-child relationship, well, I guess I'm not a very good estimator of that relationship as there never was any real connection between my mother and I.

[ClubV12]

Having given this issue some serious thought and study, I DO see a direct connection between this and LGBT issues. In dealing with issues of headship we are tinkering with the bible princples of what constitutes headship, leadership, which has always been the roll of a man. The idea that women can fulfill this roll is a relatively new concept and to accept it there has been talk along the lines of "new light". I recognize, as does the Church, that women in many cases can do a better job than a man. We also recognize that women are taking a more active roll in pursuing these kinds of positions and are well qualified from an education and experience stand point.

Thus the argument is now being made that this is a "sign" from God that a "new order of things", "new light" is of a divine nature. Justifying a change of the gaurd.

I believe this position has major flaws because we know that any "new light" will not remove or replace old light. It will only enhance and build upon the former. Therefore, this is not only a flawed theory, it sets a dangerous precedant for what IS "new light"?

Furthermore, once the barriers to "headship/leadership" have been broken down this WILL IMPACT the meaning and institution of "marriage", where clearly the man is the leader of his household. Now good or bad, that is just the biblical way it is. Any "new light" will have to be consistent with the biblical way, or it is false light. This will lead to questions and contemplation on what marriage really means and I think you can see where that will go. If marriage itself is in question, why not question who should be allowed to marry? The LGBT is going to have a field day with this!

I recall when immigration and gays were linked and everyone said that was WAY overblown and a ridiculous connection, would never happen. BUT today we see LGBT actively engaged in the immigration debate and people are very much surprised to see this. Not everybody was blind to it however.

You have been warned, womens ordination and LGBT WILL be married if we continue on this track!

My concerns are not so much at the General Conference and Church doctrine level, it is at the local Conference and local Church level where we will see very troublesome issues. Whole Churches may have to be removed before this is over. Along with Pastors here and there as well. Pandora. Box, quick, close the lid!

[CoAspen]

Quote:

BUT today we see LGBT actively engaged in the immigration debate and people are very much surprised to see this.

Can't stop laughing...the last time I checked LGBT's were human also, so why wouldn't they part of any political debate on this or any issue!!!!

[ClubV12]

Many dismissed the LGBT groups interest in this issue as nothing more than any other group that might be interested.

Turns out their interest in marriage is also tied to their interest in allowing immigration of a spouse. That up's the anty considerably on the aspect of marriages of convenience.

Civil Union recognized and authorized for immigration? BOOM, overnight the percentage of so called "gay immigrants" will go through the roof!

Politicians are very concerned about this, and last year it wasn't even on their radar. Didn't see THAT coming!

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Civil Union recognized and authorized for immigration? BOOM, overnight the percentage of so called "gay immigrants" will go through the roof!

......way out there!!

But at least it is humorous!!

[ClubV12]

I see what your saying, gay's should be prevented from bringing in a spouse from a foreign country under any circumstances. I agree.

We have enough trouble with illegal marriages of convenience already between a man and a woman. Disallowing gay marriage/unions would much easier than trying to adapt Federal law to a gay marriage/union and figure out what standards would apply to determine if said marriage/union was one of illegal convenience or legitimate. Best just to avoid the whole issue by not letting gays bring foreign spouses into the country at all. That way the smugglers will be denied the potential loop hole of gaining access by an illegal marriage of convenience by entering into a gay marriage.

Not that any self respecting foreigner would even think of entering into a gay marriage even it did mean it would be easier to enter country. They all have much higher moral standards than that I'm sure.

Oh look, was that a flying pig that just went by? :)